Agenda Profile: Urmas Reinsalu
Draft law amending the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act and the International Sanctions Act (640 SE) – third reading
2025-06-19
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to the draft amendment to the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act (640 SE), as it sets a precedent for limiting fundamental human rights and casts suspicion on the majority of bona fide citizens. This stance is value-based, focusing on constitutional issues and procedural violations. Isamaa will vote against the bill and appeal to the President of the Republic with a request not to proclaim the law.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in legislative procedure, constitutional rights, and data processing, referencing technical matters related to banking secrecy, account transactions, and profiling. Authoritative sources are utilized, including the opinions of the Chancellor of Justice and the Auditor General, and examples are given of unsuccessful attempts made by European Union member states (the Netherlands).
1 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is urgent, extremely critical, and cautionary, emphasizing the unprecedented speed of the bill's processing and the dangerous nature of its content. Both logical arguments are employed (referencing criticism from institutions) and emotional language, accusing the opposing side of misleading the public. The style is formal, but includes strong warnings against the creation of a "superbase" and a "backdoor."
1 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker refers to the events of recent days and the public debate, promising specific further actions, such as appealing to the President and the Chancellor of Justice. Earlier events are also mentioned, for example, the Tax and Customs Board’s desire to access accounts last summer.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary targets of criticism are the initiators of the draft bill (including Maris Lauri), the government (for procedural violations), and the authorities who will be granted expanded access to data. The criticism is intense, centering on procedural errors—such as the lack of necessary approvals and the "supersonic speed" of the process—and substantive threats posed to fundamental rights.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The collaborative approach involves consolidating critical positions, citing support from constitutional institutions (the Chancellor of Justice, the Auditor General) and economic organizations (the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Estonian Employers' Confederation). It is noted that the Banking Association was the only entity consulted, and they also criticized the issue of banking secrecy.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is national (the collection of data on Estonian individuals and companies) and international, drawing a comparison with the legal practice of European Union member states (the Netherlands). Local or regional topics are not addressed.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic views are expressed as concerns regarding the business environment, referencing the criticism leveled by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Central Confederation of Employers. Emphasis is placed on the State Auditor General's worry about economic efficiency, as well as opposition to the large-scale collection of data concerning the majority of Estonian companies.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The primary social theme is the protection of fundamental rights and civil liberties from state surveillance and data profiling. The speaker stresses that the new database casts doubt on the conduct of most good-faith Estonian people, thereby creating a procedural suspicion that can be acted upon.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on opposing the draft amendment to the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act (640 SE), which concerns the creation of a new data processing system. The speaker is an active opponent of the bill, criticizing both its substance and its procedural quality, and has vowed to appeal to the President of the Republic with a request that it not be promulgated.
1 Speeches Analyzed